xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: regression test for ext4 resize with non-extent fi

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: regression test for ext4 resize with non-extent files
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:55:44 +1000
Cc: guaneryu@xxxxxxxxx, ext4 development <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <518C6414.20800@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <518C1D08.4080309@xxxxxxxxxx> <CA+dCu8_DtrqMy97u9NfHwCC8_-z9uSrF1oR3B=ej15gL6C=W+Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <518C6414.20800@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:05:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/9/13 10:03 PM, Eryu Guan wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx 
> > <mailto:sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> > 
> 
> ...
> 
> >     index 53af708..4c3e2f4 100644
> >     --- a/tests/ext4/group
> >     +++ b/tests/ext4/group
> >     @@ -9,3 +9,4 @@
> >      303 aio dangerous ioctl rw stress
> >      304 aio dangerous ioctl rw stress
> >      305 auto
> >     +306 dangerous rw resize quick
> > 
> > 
> > I'm wondering why it's not in auto group :)
> 
> 
> because I forgot about auto! :)
> 
> But it's also somewhat dangerous; it could oops or hang, so perhaps
> auto is not a good idea.

If the bug has already been fixed, then auto rather than dangerous
should be used. If the hang/panic cannot be fixed, or is going to
take some time to be fixed, that's when dangerous should be used.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>